We are now requiring that new registrants confirm their request for an account by email. Once you complete the "Sign Up" process to set up your user name and password, please send an email to the New Accounts Administator to obtain new account approval.
I'll need to read that closer then! Thanks for that! You were quicker than I was.
I will say that I'm always a little skeptical of phrases like:
" As to Cicero's translation, I reluctantly conclude that he, like Purinton, simply got it wrong."
Purinton is modern, but Cicero was much closer to the source material than we are. He even knew practicing Epicureans! I'm not so sure his translation should be summarily dismissed as "simply getting it wrong."
in terms of marriage in Epicurus' own context, we need to be sure we keep grounded in Epicurus' will, in which he provided for the marriage of Metrodorus' daughter.
That is not a lot to go on. To expand the view to the earliest Epicureans, I submit this excerpt from Metrodorus's Wikipedia entry (emphasis added):
Metrodorus died in 278/7 BC, in the 53rd year of his age, seven years before Epicurus, who would have appointed him his successor had he survived him. He left behind him a son named Epicurus, and a daughter, whom Epicurus, in his will, entrusted to the guardianship of Amynomachus and Timocrates of Potamus, to be brought up under the joint care of themselves and Hermarchus, and provided for out of the property which he left behind him. In a letter also which he wrote upon his death-bed, Epicurus commended the children to the care of Idomeneus, who had married Batis, the sister of Metrodorus. The 20th of each month was kept by the disciples of Epicurus as a festive day in honour of their master and Metrodorus. Leontion is spoken of as the wife or mistress of Metrodorus.
The word "love" itself becomes very complicated because of all it's forms.
Couldn't agree more on that. I always come back to the ability of English to say each of the following:
I love ice cream.
I love my spouse.
I love my children.
I love my grandma.
I love my friends.
I love reading.
etc.
An abundance of nuance is packed into that one four-letter word "love." It does a lot of heavy lifting in our language!
Thought this might be helpful too
I'll look forward to digging into your post as well!
Just found this in Academia. Just read the first few paragraphs, but I found the author's note on translation of DL 10.118 and VS51 intriguing!
The Internet Classics Archive | On the Nature of Things by Lucretius
And here, whoso
Decides to call the ocean Neptune, or
The grain-crop Ceres, and prefers to abuse
The name of Bacchus rather than pronounce
The liquor's proper designation, him
Let us permit to go on calling earth
Mother of Gods, if only he will spare
To taint his soul with foul religion.
We should always remember that Lucretius is using the Greek gods' names metaphorically, as he describes in Book 2 above.
Aphrodite and the Gods of Love: Worship (Getty Villa Exhibitions)
This is the first time I've ever seen one aspect of Aphrodite be named "Aphrodite en kepois" (Aphrodite in the gardens).
https://www.theoi.com/Cult/AphroditeCult.html
This page seems to imply there was a shrine of Aphrodite kepois in or near the Kerameikos district of ancient Athens. Where was the Garden of Epicurus? In the Kerameikos. Coincidence? Pausanias was writing in the 2nd c. CE.
I realize this is a bit of a tangent so I apologize for that. To get back on track, here's my take on the characteristics of the sage as it pertains to this topic:
PS: Having looked at that Pausanias excerpt closer, maybe I spoke too soon. Here are the two sections in Pausanias where he talks about Aphrodite in the gardens:
I never thought of the "breaking the cycle of samsara/rebirth" as akin to "better never to have been born'" but I can see where that could be inferred.
Oh yeah, Epicurus was NOT cool with that sentiment! He hits this hard in 126-7:
So, the one who exhorts, on the one hand, for the one who is young to live nobly; and, on the other hand, the one who is old to come to an end nobly is a good-hearted simpleton not only because life is to be welcomed but also because the practice of living well, nobly, and beautifully and the practice of dying well, nobly, and beautifully are the same. But far worse is the one who says, on the one hand, it is well not to be born; or, on the other hand,
"failing this, to pass through the gates of Hades as soon as possible."
[127] On the one hand, if what they say is persuasive, how does one not depart from life? For this is readily at hand, if indeed one was to resolve oneself steadfastly to this. If, on the other hand, this is in jest, one is foolish for making fun of things which do not admit of this.
I always get a kick out of the fact that Epicurus is quoting Theognis's poem in that line before 127. It tickles me because Epicurus resolves the μεν (on the one hand) in his own writing using the δε (on the other hand) in Theognis's poem. That's some clever writing!
Sorry, went off on a little tangent there.
I just saw Kalosyni 's "Bible" reference to be metaphorical, as in a collection of authoritative texts providing what Epicurus and the early Epicureans wrote up to 529 CE. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever get such a reference work. The closest we currently have is Book X of Diogenes Laertius although I've been reading Philodemus's On Property Management and On Death today and may have some posts at some point. The scrolls from Herculaneum are always tantalizingly out of reach. I also recently requested Les Epicuriens through interlibrary loan, but, as I barely read French at all, we'll see how helpful it is.
Also Kalosyni , I agree about the UU church (although just as history for anyone interested, the Universalist comes from the Christian concept of universal salvation for everyone and not a benevolent universe) not necessarily being the *best *spot to form a Garden. 
. Here are some of the reasons I thought they *might* be amenable:
https://www.uucantonny.org/good-without-god/ (mentions Epicurus)
The Swerve: How the World Became Modern | Unitarian Universalist Church of Canton
https://austinuu.org/wp2013/spiritual-ambivalence/ "Epicurus modified the whole dualistic view of humans and took the stance that flesh AND soul were physical and both ended with death – and both body and soul dissolved back into nothingness upon death. Life was for living; it wasn’t just a preamble to eternity."
https://www.uuworld.org/articles/ameri…er-church-state (mentions Epicurus)
"Epicurean group's circle dinners" https://www.phoenixuu.org/wp-content/upl…018/08/1996.pdf
btw, I laughed out loud in the car at Cassius 's mention of our only time limit is "our inevitable death". 
Can't argue with that!
Keep up the good work!
Both your posts were extremely helpful. Thank you very much for taking the time to compose them! I think I get it now and concur with your conclusions. And, Joshua , we all (I think) continue to wrestle with the anticipations
This also helps contextualize that word δογματιζω (dogmatizō), too, when you say (emphasis added):
Epicurus took firm positions on these issues through deductive chain reasoning
That's exactly what I think is meant by the use of the word unfortunately translated by some as the English "dogmatic." The original meaning in the texts strikes me as being exactly aligned with Cassius 's statement.
I sometimes wonder if contacting some Unitarian Universalist churches wouldn't be fruitful to set up Epicurean "study groups" or events.
We went to a UU church a number of years ago when the kids were little, and they were very (almost too) open to all beliefs and non-beliefs.
Side note: My favorite anecdote from that time happened during the Q&A after the sermon one Sunday. It was a sermon on spirituality, etc., and one of the attendees (a long-time member!) raised his hand and started his comment with "I have to say that I'm not comfortable with all this God talk." Yeah, it was that kind of congregation
I did have a question and observation:
(1) Both Joshua in this episode and DeWitt in his book say that Epicurus was definitely not a complete empiricist. I'm curious why that is.
To me, Epicurus seemed exactly to be described as that:
a person who supports the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses.
Am I misunderstanding something in the definition of empiricism? I'm also not being argumentative, just curious.
On the topic of Epicurus's being "dogmatic," the word used in Diogenes Laërtius's work is
δογματιεῖν
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, δ , δμῳ-ή , δογμα^τ-ίζω
with the sense of decree or "lay down as an opinion."
From the context of DL, I get the sense that it is a counter to the Cynics and Skeptics in that the wise one will take a firm stand and not be wishy-washy.
Finally finished up on the way home tonight.
Incidentally, thanks for the couple shout-outs
This was a good episode, gentlemen. Well done. These more freewheeling discussions are very helpful and engaging. I really liked the specific mentions of the forum and our extended discussions here. 
Yes this has to happen in stages. But I do think we all need to be clear about the eventual goal , which is real-life local friendships, real-life marriages, real life Epicurean children and childhood education, etc.!
The whole nine yards that they had in the ancient world.
Aim high, ο φίλος μου! Aim high, my friend!
I feel I should provide a little more context and rationale for my post in light of your comments.
I regard eating your food consciously and with great joy as inherently natural, something which bring us more pleasure in the end
Exactly.
Still, I wouldn't call it inherently Epicurean
I completely agree; however, I think it's completely in line with Epicurean philosophy. (see below for more)
That would almost be what we sense (rightly or wrong) to have been DeWitt's attitude toward Christianity, on steroids -- every observation of commonality between Christianity and Epicurus becomes "aha - there was crosspolination!" And every observation of people having a good time means that they are Epicurean!
Oh, Cassius knows I'll respond to this
But seriously, I *fully* concur there is no "cross-pollination" or influence or connection (from the researchers/dieticians here) in any way with Epicurean philosophy. I am not (at least in my mind) seeing Epicurean appropriation around every corner.
However, I think their descriptions falls well within an Epicurean tradition or practice unbeknownst to them. Their emphasis on paying attention to your body's cues, your feelings of pleasure and pain, your own interoception is exactly what an Epicurean could/would do.
To respond to @smoothiekiwi , I think it is actually inherently Epicurean without being directly connected to Epicureanism per se.
There are no "rituals" or "traditions" involved in this suggested way of approaching eating. Simply listening to your body's natural innate cues. Epicureans need to pay attention to their feelings of pleasure and pain, and this "intuitive eating" is saying exactly that.
Now, all this being said, this isn't a hill I'm willing to die on... But I think this approach *is* Epicurean in the broad sense. I do not want to go down the syncretism path, but I don't think this particular approach to a healthy attitude toward food (in this time of general abundance and easy access to junk/fast food) is a bad idea, and its general coincidence to being aligned to Epicurean principles was striking from my perspective.
I just saw a piece on the CBS Mornings show about "intuitive eating" that struck me as a very Epicurean way of looking at food.
Here's the site
This line was interesting: "The Japanese have the wisdom to keep pleasure as one of their goals of healthy living."
Uh, hello?
I'm sure the video from the show will be up soon
I'm only half way through the episode, but this is definitely an enjoyable one! Nicely done.
I was going to post this over in the arrogance thread, but thought this was also appropriate.
I seemed to remember in Sedley's translation and commentary of Epicurus's On Nature, Book XXVIII, Epicurus being a little self-deprecating. One example comes at the very end:
So let the words which we have prattled suffice for the present. And you others, try ten thousand times over to commit to memory what I and Metrodorus here have just said.
And now I think I have finished prattling to you this twenty-eighth instalment of our consecutive lecture series.
Epicurus actually does use the word ἀδολεσχέω which means "talk idly, prate [talk foolishly or at tedious length about something]" So I get the image of him and Metrodorus having a "bull session" in front of the students in the Garden, and then laughing and going "Okay, I think we're done for now."
That never struck me as the behavior off someone who was arrogant.
This is an interesting comment from that article - i was not aware that Tacitus mentioned Epicurus:
since Tacitus, in the Dialogue of orators, advises orators to use Plato and Xenophon “and even to borrow certain edifying maxims from Epicurus and Metrodorus“.
Dialogue on Orators - Wikisource, the free online library
see Dialogue XXXI
So Epicurus did occupy the center square of the mosaic:
Ah! But there were originally 8 portraits not 5 it looks like according to this link
FYI for those who read French:
